If you want to support war without end, I highly recommend getting a yellow Mobius endless war ribbon for your car. Details and plans can be found at the Freeway Blogger

Hard-hitting? Isn't criticism like hers a daily occurrence in UK Parliament?

Well said, tlees2.

Isn't it the case that many in Israel see their situation as war without end -- or at least, war for the forseeable future/peace as an illusory and dangerous idea? This may infect our neo-cons.

The Brecht poem that asks forgiveness from the future for the evil that we do, implies at least a future peace.

I guess the Spartans are the poster child for perpetual war.

I'm not forgetting that Josh Marshall was a kind of cheerleader for the Iraq war. When is he going to unburden his guilty feelings?

I'm very impressed. Nancy Pelosi is doing a great job.

""There is very little chance the Democrats in the end can stop Bush, much less slow him down,'' as he uses his commander-in-chief power to pursue the war, Larry Sabato said."

That's true, but she's making sure that Bush will pay the price for his stubbornness.

Well, throw that dart at today's date, please.

Tom

After World War II, the Cold War and the nuclear arms race led to not just a containment policy. It also meant that the American president could be called on to launch retaliatory American warheads to counter a nuclear threat. With only minutes to make a decison, it would have been impossible to enter the slow Congressional debates.

While this was possibly a sensible Cold War policy in terms of a nuclear war, it also meant that America ceased to "declare war". It was believed that a formal declaration of war would increase the risks of a nuclear war.

With the ending of the Cold War, this policy has not been challenged or altered in any way. So now we have bombing raids, special ops raids, and "wars that aren't wars". The president has been given the authority to make these decisions without Congressional input. With the 2002 Iraq War Resolution, we find Congress "pre-approving" war before all were satisfied that negotiations were completed or who "trusted" the executive to make the correct call at a later date.

As we're finding out, it is extremely difficult to extricate ourselves from a battleground. So is this the question that we need to answer with the 2008 general election? It seems to me that this would be a sensible discussion to have with the American public. Speaker Pelosi certainly raises the shadow of it with her statement.

"Little chance" == Why?

Is it because they just WON'T TRY? As yet, I have not seen any REAL effort from the Democrats trying to be the checks and balance for this administration...? (exception -- Kudos Waxman)

Give me a critique of Feingold? (Also I would like to see a Congressional report -- I thought Feingold was going to request one?)

http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/releases/07/01/20070131iraq.html

Justice should be seen to be done, and accountability should be SEEN to be done.. Not by backroom deals, and petty career manoevering tactics.

I mean Hello!
Halliburton moving headquarters to Dubai!
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/3/11/114721/693

Names, I want names of those Congress members who do not want to end this war... that think we can and should protect those oil fields using US cannon fodder for US corporate interests? I'm sick hearing "we don't have the votes" -- I want to know WHERE we don't have the votes.

Start with the 2002 Iraq War Resolution vote and the Dems who voted "yes". Update with those in the current Congress (some have retired).

The Dems have never been an anti-war party. There are significant numbers who oppose "dumb wars" but would vote for war in the right circumstances--and most would currently define that as supporting the war in Afghanistan.

Yes, but.

We have a setup that imho amounts to this: The People allows Bush to carry on the Republican 2002 agenda and no more, as shown by their mandate-devoid reelection of him in 2004. That agenda is a series of actions and policies that slowly self-destruct and backfire, objectivewise and with the electorate, obviously. By early 2006 there was enough failure for The People permit Democrats back into the picture. Democrats were given majorities in Congress that makes them players, but not sufficient power to actively terminate the Republican agenda.

The dynamic of 2007/08 is, I believe, that Republicans have just enough power to carry on their existing policies. These policies fail against realities, yet Republicans are given leeway to try out all variations and propping-ups they can think of. When all their options are defeated and resources and political credibility used up in a particular realm of policy, their control of it collapses and Democrats take control. So it's a game of Republicans expending all they have, then (and only then) control and credibility relentlessly going over to Democrats.

So far, I'd say the Democrats have just about taken over on competence and management and oversight, on ethics in government, and on national economic affairs. (This from majorities on the local and state level, and House majority.) They are at par and near takeover on scale and focus of overall spending/government activities, national social issues, and are at stalemate with Republicans on setting the large scale parameters of national foreign policy. (This due to the present Senate split.) The Supreme Court has chose to step out of the picture entirely, i.e. go neutral also. But Republicans still have rather full operational war powers and national policing (e.g. acting against terrorism and national prosecutorial priority) powers via the Presidency, and (as we know) leverage those shamelessly.

But the Presidency is incrementally discrediting itself and Republican power, one agency and Department and major appointee at a time, and there isn't much left of it. The Attorney General/DoJ are probably days or weeks from wrecking on the rocks they've hit. The Chiefs of Staff/Pentagon and Condi Rice are on probation- Iraq will decide their political fate. The Office of the Vice President is politically exposed now via Libby and their hypocrisy about terrorism- the next scandal will be lethal. The Presidency as a whole now stands on the support of their final political support bloc, the 24% reactionary bloc of the electorate. And that is staked on a promise of non-failure of the "surge" effort in Iraq.

There are obvious delusions on both partisan sides about the balance of power and its dynamic. Partisan Republicans imagine that The People is still at bottom enamoured of their agenda and ideology since it acts defensive about it: it opposes and punishes Democratic efforts to actively terminate its implementation. Partisan Democrats are persuaded that The People gave them more power and license to use it in attacks on Republicans than it did. The evidence grossly frustrates both sides- Republicans that their decline is slow and irreversible and permanent, and Democrats that their power is constrained to passivity. But the slow flow of power is completely in one direction, and the '08 elections can really only have one outcome.

I watched the Obey video on Youtube. It was the most disgusting display of arrogance I have seen from an 'elected' official in a long time...

And you are an apologist for this? Tina Richards was quiet and respectful wanting a sincere answer to her questions. And you call this whining and being uninformed...? I wonder whose fault that is, certainly not her's!

I went to Obey's site... and saw 'I'm guessing' his/the Democrats proposal..?

Seemingly more of the same... benchmarks -- benchmarks that the Democrats have been navel gazing for over 4 years while the Democrats have been in the minority! What benchmarks? The Iraqi government has asked us to leave -- oh how many times?

03/08/2007 Democratic Leaders Announce Iraq, Veterans Proposal

PLUS, what about that supplemental? The supplemental that he was going off on a tangent on, that he didn't fully answer the question to ... full of pork no doubt. Of course there is supposed to be funding in there for the troops -- but that's not the whole of it! - What about the permanent bases, the merceneries, the contractors, the pork?

You can sit back and look weak and gullible, deflecting the corruption as long as you like, and concerns about those exclamation points - well get over it - they're here to stay :)

I and others are not going to play the gullible, mummy knows best games anymore -- we don't have the time (literally)... If he's talking about an illegal war - then he should tell us, if he hasn't got the votes -- then tell us who is the problem? Where's that on his website?

We have to stop sitting around wringing our hands, wondering when they deem it appropriate to tell us what they want us to know and nothing more.

Too right we want names... and no it's not maturity that they are scared of -- It's knowledge and an INFORMED ELECTORATE that scares the beejesus out of them (totally)... And that doesn't come by writing emails. Often it comes but knocking on the 'your' elected official door and pushing for answers.

Your lack of forceful inquiry just enables the democrats to become the opposition e.g. Hoyer and Rahm being the tip of the iceberg. What's the point if the democrats and republicans merge as one corporate party - that's why we need to fight for our party now.

BTW -- Are you a member of moveon -- or are they too radical and organized for you?

You know, this measure could backfire on the Dems.Imagine this scenario: The American troops are forced by Congress to redeploy to their bases, coming out only to hunt terrorists and train the Iraqi army. The insurgents, who read the papers, too, lay low until the redeployment is complete, then unleash a bloodbath like no one has ever seen before. The papers are filled every day with reports about attacks that double, triple the body counts we have seen in the past. Every Republican candidate can't wait to rush to the mike and say, "How's that redeployment working for you now?"